Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
O R D E R प्रशाुंत महर्षि, ऱेखा सदस्य के द्वारा / PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is filed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) 2(1), Mumbai against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Mumbai [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] on 19.08.2020, wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred as ‘Act’) dated 19.03.2014 was allowed.
The brief facts of the case shows that the assessee is a trust registered under section 12A of the Act and also with the Charity Commissioner, Mumbai. The assessee filed its return of income on 29.09.2011 having a total income of Rs. 3,93,86,346/-. The assessment order was passed under section 143(3) of the Act by the learned Assessing Officer on 19.03.2014 determining the total income of the assessee as nil. The learned Assessing Officer disallowed the deficit carry forward from the earlier years amounting to Rs. 1,50,38,577/- and also current years under deficit of Rs.3,93,86,346/-. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim holding that the provision 11 of the Act does not permit the determination of deposit.
Aggrieved by that order assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT(A) , who allowed the claim of the assessee following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of DIT(Exemption) vs. MIDE in of 2011 dated 20.03.2013, wherein following the decision of CIT vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (2003) 264 ITR 110 (Bom), the claim of the assessee was allowed. The learned CIT(A) also noted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT(E) Vs. Subros Educational Society in Misc. Appeal No. 941 of 2018 in Civil Appeal No.5171 of 2016 has allowed the
The learned DR ssupported the order of the learned Assessing Officer.
Despite notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and therefore, the issue is decided on the merits of the case as per information available on record.
We have carefully considered the contentions of ld DR and perused the orders of the lower authorities. Vide Para No. 7.3.1 the learned CIT(A) has allowed the deficit to the assessee to be carried forward following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. He also supported such decision by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the Special SLP filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The learned CIT(A) has dealt with the whole issue as under:-
“7.3.1 It is seen that the issue of allowing or not allowing carry forward of deficits in the case of Trust is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of jurisdictional High Court in the case of DIT (E) vs. MIDC in of 2011 dated 20.03.2013 wherein placing reliance on the decision of CIT vs.
We are also conscious of the facts that with effect from 1-4-2022 explanation (2) is inserted after explanation 1 Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this clause, it is clarified that the calculation of income required to be applied or accumulated during the previous year shall be made without any set off or deduction or allowance of any excess application of any of the year preceding to the previous year; 09. However Notes on clauses to Finance Bill 2021 says that These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2022-2023 and subsequent assessment years. Therfore it does not apply for the impugned assessment year.
No infirmity was pointed out by the learned Departmental Representative in the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). We also do not find any infirmity in his order and therefore the same is upheld. Solitary ground of appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed.